THE  EQUALITY  OF  ALL,  THE  BASIS  OF  THE  CONSTITUTION. 


/ 

SPEECH 


HON,  JOHN  A.  BINGHAM 


OF  OHIO, 


ON  THE  PRESIDENT’S  MESSAGE 


DELIVERED  IN  THE  HOUSE  OP  REPRESENTATIVES,  JANUARY  18,  1857. 


WASHINGTON,  D.  C. 

BUELL  &  BLANCHARD,  PRINTERS. 

1857. 


\ 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 
in  2018  with  funding  from 
University  of  Illinois  Urbana-Champaign 


% 


https://archive.org/details/equalityofallbasOObing 


SPEECH  OF  ME.  BINGHAM. 


The  President’s  Annual  Message  being  under  consid¬ 
eration,  on  a  motion  to  refer  and  print — 

Mr.  BINGHAM  said: 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  President’s  message,  now 
under  consideration,  abounds  in  sentiments 
subversive  of  the  Constitution,  and  sanctions 
and  defends  a  policy  destructive  of  the  public 
peace,  and  injurious  to  the  public  interests. 
And  yet  the  President  complains  of  agitation. 
His  friend  and  advocate,  the  gentleman  from 
Georgia,  [Mr.  Stephens,]  repeats  this  com¬ 
plaint,  and  cries,  “  Agitation  !  ”  “  Agitation  I  ” 
There  has  been  agitation,  general  and  uni¬ 
versal,  amongst  the  people.  It  still  continues, 
and  not  without  cause.  The  President,  in  my 
judgment,  has  abused  the  high  trusts  commit¬ 
ted  to  him  ;  hence  the  agitation ,  and  that  “cry 
of  alarm  ”  among  the  people,  of  which  he  com¬ 
plains.  It  is  right,  sir,  that  the  people  raise 
the  “  cry  of  alarm ;  ”  it  is  right  that  they 
agitate  for  the  correction  of  abuses  committed 
by  their  agents  and  representatives.  I  believe, 
with  Burke,  “where  there  is  abuse ,  there  ought 
‘  to  be  clamor  ;  because  it  is  better  to  have  our 
‘  slumber  broken  by  the  fire-bell,  than  to  per- 
‘  iah  amidst  the  flames.” 

The  President  in  this  message,  under  cover 
of  a  cunning  device  of  words,  advances  the 
monstrous  proposition  that  the  several  States 
of  tbis  Union,  as  States,  have  a  constitutional 
and  imprescriptible  right  to  traffic  in  slaves, 
not  only  within  their  respective  limits,  but 
throughout  the  national  Territories.  Having 
inaugurated  this  policy  in  Kansas,  by  which 
that  ill-fated  Territory  has  been  subjected  to 
an  absolute  tyranny,  by  which  its  soil  has 
been  cursed  with  the  manacled  foot  of  the 
bondman,  and  stained  with  the  blood  of  mur¬ 
der  and  assassination ;  the  President,  with  an 
audacity  unparalleled,  deprecates  agitation , 
and  demands  acquiescence  in  this  policy  as 
the  test  of  fidelity  to  the  Constitution  and  the 
Union.  To  enforce  this  acquiescence  as  a 
duty,  the  President  undertakes  a  defence  of 


the  repeal  of  what  he  terms  “the  statute  re¬ 
striction  upon  the  institution  of  new  States,” 
and  an  exposition  of  the  principles  of  the  Con¬ 
stitution  and  of  the  rights  of  the  States  under 
it.  Of  the  repeal  of  the  “  statute  restriction,” 
by  the  Kansas-Nebraska  act  of  1854,  he  says  : 

“  Congress  legislated  upon  the  subject  in 
1  such  terms  as  were  most  consonant  with  the 
‘  principle  of  popular  sovereignty  which  un- 
1  derlies  our  Government.  It  could  not  have 
‘  legislated  otherwise,  without  doing  violence 
‘  to  another  great  principle  of  our  institutions, 
1  the  imprescriptible  right  of  equality  of  the 
1  several  States .” 

This  “  statute  restriction  upon  the  institution 
of  new  States,”  which  was  repealed,  the  Presi¬ 
dent  tells  us  was  violative  of  the  imprescripti¬ 
ble  right  of  equality  of  the  several  States.  It  is 
not  the  right  of  the  new  States  that  this  statute 
restriction  invaded,  for  they  were  r.ot  in  being, 
but  the  imprescriptible  right  of  equality  of  the 
several  States. 

What  was  this  statute  restriction,  the  repeal 
of  which  the  President  thus  attempts  to  defend, 
and  why  was  it  originally  enacted?  It  was 
the  restriction  imposed  upon  the  extension  of 
Slavery,  by  the  eighth  section  of  the  act  of 
1820,  commonly  called  the  Missouri  Compro¬ 
mise;  and  which  forever  excluded  Slavery 
(otherwise  than  in  punishment  of  crime)  from 
all  that  part  of  the  Louisiana  Territory  lying 
west  of  the  western  boundary  of  the  State  of 
Missouri,  and  north  of  3G°  30/  north  latitude. 
This  prohibition  was  in  its  terms  perpetual. 
The  motives  which  prompted  its  enactment  are 
apparent.  The  Congress  which  enacted  it 
doubtless  felt,  and  knew,  that  Slavery  was  sub¬ 
versive  of  the  ends  of  all  free  government,  a 
violation  of  justice  and  of  the  rights  of  the  en¬ 
slaved,  and  contrary  to  the  spirit  of  our  free 
Constitution  ;  they  also  knew  that,  in  the  wrong 
in  which  this  institution  has  its  inception,  there 
was  no  law  to  restrain  the  enslavement  of  all 


4 


classes  and  races  of  men ;  that  the  brute  force,  j 
by  which  the  inherent  rights  of  the  black  race 
had  for  centuries  been  cloven  down,  was  not 
likely  to  be  restrained  from  inflicting  like  cru-  . 
elties  and  oppressions  upon  the  white  race —  j 
that  the  violence  in  which  this  system  lives 
and  has  its  being,  is  deaf  alike  to  the  voice  of 
justice  and  the  cry  of  the  oppressed,  whether 
that  cry  bursts  from  the  crushed  heart  of  an  ! 
African  or  an  American.  Hence  the  origin 
of  that  enactment.  It  was  humane,  politic, 
and  juat. 

But,  sir,  it  was  repealed,  we  are  told,  in  or¬ 
der  to  maintain  inviolate  “the  imprescriptible 
right  of  equality  of  the  several  States.”  An 
imprescriptible  right  of  equality  in  what?  In 
the  bones  and  sinews  and  souls  of  men  I  And 
this  right,  the  President  tells  us,  is  imprescript-  j 
ible — not  to  be  forfeited  by  non-user,  nor  to  be 
restrained  by  Congressional  enactment,  and  co-  1 
extensive  with  the  national  Territories.  The  ; 
President  further  tells  us  that  this  right  “  is  a  j 
‘  great  principle  cf  our  institutions — a  consii ■  j 
1  tvtional  right  of  each  and  all  of  the  States  of  I 
‘  the  Union,  as  States,  which  the  people,  by  1 
‘  their  recent  political  action,  have  sanctioned  , 
1  and  announced.” 

If  all  this  be  true,  what  a  mockery  for  the 
President  to  tell  us,  as  he  does  tell  us,  in  the 
very  next  line  of  this  message,  that  the  people 
have  thus  “  proclaimed  their  unalterable  and 
‘  devoted  attachment  to  the  Constitution,  as 
1  the  safeguard  of  the  rights  of  all ,  and  as  the 
1  spirit  of  the  liberty  of  the  Republic.”  The 
spirit  of  the  liberty  of  the  Republic!  to  enslave 
men  throughout  the  national  jurisdiction!  to 
cast  a  fetter  upon  the  human  soul!  to  inter¬ 
pose  the  dark  shadow  of  oppression  between 
man  and  his  Maker !  Sir,  this  is  not  the  spirit 
of  that  liberty  which  God  gave  to  man,  when 
He  breathed  into  him  the  breath  of  life.  This 
is  not  the  spirit  of  that  liberty,  one  hour  of 
which,  “is  worth  a  whole  eternity  of  bond¬ 
age.”  This  is  not  the  spirit  of  that  liberty,  for 
which  Hampden  and  Sidney  died,  and  for  de¬ 
fending  which,  Milton  was  hunted  and  perse 
cuted  in  his  blindness.  This  is  not  the  spirit 
of  that  liberty,  for  which  the  great  apo3tles  of 
our  race — men  cf  whom  the  world  was  not 
worthy — suffered  hunger  and  thurst,  cold  and 
nakedness,  and  endured,  without  fear  and  with¬ 
out  reproach,  the  jeer3  of  hate,  the  scowl  of 
power,  the  gloom  of  the  dungeon,  the  torture 
of  the  wheel,  the  agony  of  the  fagot,  the 
ignominy  cf  the  scafibid  and  the  cross. 

"  I  shall  not  stop  to  inquire,  whether  the  Pres-  1 
ideat  has  not  uttered  a  flagitious  libel  upon  i 
the  American  people  by  his  announcement,  ! 
that  they  have  sanctioned  this  alleged  right  to  j 
enslave  men  as  the  “  constitutional  right  of  | 
each  and  all  of  the  States,  as  States,  as  the  j 
spirit  of  the  liberty  of  the  Republic.”  They  j 
will  answer  to  that  charge  themselves,  and 
with  more  potency  than  any  man  can  answer 
for  them. 


Is  it  true,  that  this  alleged  imprescriptible 
right  of  the  several  States  is  a  great  principle 
of  our  institutions,  sanctioned  by  the  Constitu¬ 
tion,  and  upheld  by  the  national  arm?  If  this 
be  true,  it  affords  the  reason  of  the  President’s 
assertion,  in  his  message  of  last  year,  that  the 
attempt  by  Congressional  enactment  to  pro¬ 
hibit  Slavery  in  the  Territories  recently  ac¬ 
quired  from  Mexico,  was  “  the  endeavor  to 
‘  force  the  ideas  of  internal  policy  entertained 
i  in  particular  States,  upon  allied  independent 
‘  States.” 

Yfith  these  instructions  of  the  President 
upon  the  “  theory  of  our  Government,”  we 
can  understand  why  it  is  that  the  Southern 
Slates  deny  the  right  or  power  of  Congress  to 
exclude  Slavery  from  the  Territories  ;  while 
distinguished  Representatives  of  the  South  de¬ 
mand  of  Congress  the  repeal  of  all  restrictions 
upon  the  traffic  in  slaves  throughout  the  nation¬ 
al  jurisdiction,  whether  upon  the  land  or  the 
the  sea.  To  be  sure,  the  Constitution  provides, 
that  Congress  shall  have  power  to  regulate 
commerce;  and  the  power  to  regulate,  implies 
the  power  to  prohibit ;  but  the  Constitution 
also  provides  that  “  Congress  shall  have  power 
to  make  all  needful  rules  and  regulations 
respecting  the  Territory  cf  the  United  S rates.” 
The  power  of  Congress  to  legislate  in  respect 
of  each  of  these  subjects,  commerce  and  the 
Territories,  is  the  same,  general  and  exclusive. 
The  word  needful ,  expressed  in  the  one  grant 
of  power,  is  implied  in  the  other.  Only  that 
legislation  which  is  needful ,  is  contemplated  by 
the  Constitution  in  either  or  any  case;  only  that 
legislation  which  is  needful  should  be  tolerated 
by  the  people. 

If  the  President  be  correct,  it  follows  that 
these  powers  in  Congress  are  but  trust  powers, 
to  be  so  exercised  as  not  to  infringe,  but  main¬ 
tain,  this  alleged  imprescriptible  right  of  each 
and  all  of  the  States,  as  States.  This  was  the 
opinion  of  Mr.  Calhoun,  from  whom  manifestly 
the  President  has  taken  his  political  faith. 
That  illustrious  Senator  [Mr.  Calhoun]  said, 
“It  was  they  (the  several  States)  who  ccnstitn- 
‘  ted  the  Government  as  their  representative  or 
‘  trustee ,  and  intrusted  it  with  powers  to  be  ex- 
‘  ercisedfortheircommonbenefit.” — ( Calhomis 
Works ,  vol.  4,  p.  497.)  If  it  be  true,  then,  that 
the  States,  as  States,  have  each  this  imprescript¬ 
ible  right  to  traffic  in  slaves,  not  only  zoithin, 
but  also  without ,  their  respective  limits,  and 
that  the  National  Government  is  but  their 
trustee  to  enforce  it,  in  my  judgment,  South 
Carolina  has  the  same  constitutional  right  to 
demand  the  repeal  of  your  statute  which  pro¬ 
hibits  the  slave  trade  upon  the  seas,  and  pun¬ 
ishes  it  with  death,  as  Virginia  had  to  demand 
the  repeal  of  your  statute  of  1S20,  which  pro¬ 
hibited  the  slave  traffic  in  the  Territories. 
Both  these  enactments  rest  for  their  validity 
upou  the  same  general  power  in  Congress;  and 
the  extra-territorial  right  of  the  several  States 
to  traffic  in  slaves,  if  it  exist,  is  as  sacred  upon 


0 


the  sea  as  noon  the  land.  It  logically  results,  j  its  spirit;  they  each  and  all,  under  the  Constitu- 
therefore,  upon  the  President’s  showing,  that  tion,  have  the  right  to  do  whatever  a  ufree 
the  statute  restriction  upon  the  slave  trade  up-  i  State  may  of  right  do”  except  that  they  may 
on  the  seas  is  violative  of  a  great  principle  of  not  exercise  any  of  the  powers  granted  by  the 
our  institutions,  the  imprescriptible  right  of  |  Constitution  exclusively  to  the  General  Gov- 


equality  of  the  several  States. 

How  comes  it  that  the  President  does  not  at 
once  denounce  this  unequal  exercise  of  the 
trust  power  of  the  Government  over  the  foreign 
commerce  of  the  States,  as  “an  endeavor  to 
1  force  the  ideas  of  commercial  policy  enter- 

^  t  o  l  r',  fi  •!  ,  iv.rln- 


1  eminent.  But  I  have  yet  to  learn  that  any  State, 
formed  under  and  by  virtue  of  the  Constitu¬ 
tion,  may  of  right  enslave  its  own  children, 
and  sell  them  like  cattle  I  The  Constitution 
doe3  not  provide  for  the  erection  and  admis¬ 
sion  into  the  Union  of  such  States,  nor  does 
rained  in  particular  States  upon  allied  inde-  ;  it  admit  the  existence  of  such  a  tyranny 


4  pendent  States?7’  One  would  infer,  from  this 
language  of  the  President,  that  we  had  no  consti¬ 
tutional  Government ;  that  we  still  lived  under 
the  Confederation;  that  the  commerce  of  this 
great  country  upon  the  land  and  the  sea  was 
not  under  the  exclusive  control  of  a  National 


within  the  Territories,  where  its  iurisdictioa 
is  exclusive.  The  States,  I  say,  are  equal  un¬ 
der  the  Constitution,  in  the  right,  within  their 
respective  limits,  to  establish  justice,  to  pro¬ 
mote  the  general  welfare,  and  to  secure  to  each 
and  every  person  therein  the  absolute  enjoy- 


Government,  but  was  subject  to  the  sovereignty  i  ment  of  the  rights  of  human  nature,  which  are 
and  co'  dieting  regulations  of  thirty-one  allied  !  as  imperishable  as  the  human  soul,  and  as  uni- 
independent  States.  j  versal  as  the  human  race.  But  the  States  are 

I  scout  all  such  dogmas.  I  rejoice,  to-dav,  |  unequal  in  the  right  to  do  wrong,  if  I  may  he 
in  the  assurance  that,  despite  the  President’s  1  allowed  the  paradox — in  the  privilege  to  tram- 
false  statements  and.  false  logic,  we  have  a  I  pie  upon  the  inborn  rights  of  humanity,  and  to 
National  Government,  fully  empowered  by  the  1  violate  that  principle  of  eternal  justice,  which 
Constitution  to  regulate  exclusively  the  com-  requires  that  every  man  shall  receive  his  due. 
merce  of  the  country  with  all  foreign  States,  1  The  original  States,  not  under  the  Constitution, 
between  the  several  States  of  the  Union,  and  nor  “by  force  of  the  Constitution,”  but  inde- 
th  rough  out  the  National  Territories.  Every  :  pendent  of  it,  retained  to  themselves  a  monopc- 
Ameviean  citizen  knows  that  the  commercial  iy  in  the  horrid  crime  of  Slavery  within  their 
embarrassments  of  the  country,  after  the  es-  respective  limits,  and  also  in  the  slave  traffic 
tablishment  of  independence,  arising  out  of  the  for  twenty  years  upon  the  high  seas, 
conflicting  com  mercial  regulations  of  the  States  This  reservation  of  privileges  by  the  original 
under  the  Confederation,  contributed  more  than  j  States — this  inequality  between  them  and  the 


new  States  formed  under,  and  only  by  force  of 
the  Constitution — is  written  upon  the  face  of 
that  instrument,  and  declared  by  the  national 


any  other  cause  to  the  formation  of  the  Con¬ 
stitution. 

W  no  will  forget  the  noble  action  of  Virginia  in 

1786?  Virginia,  the  mother  of  dead  heroes, !  legislation  in  the  erection  and  admission 
and  dead  patriots,  and  dead  statesmen,  but, 
thank  God!  the  mother  also  of  a  living  Republic  three-fifth  repress 
ar  d  a  living  Constitution.  When  Virginia,  in  population,  and  als 


of 


new  States.  The  constitutional  provision  for  a 
entation,  based  upon  slave 
o  the  provision  for  the  reeap- 


1783,  appointed  her  commissioners,  instructing  1  Jure  of  slaves  escaping  from  one  State  into  an¬ 
them  to  meet  such  commissioners  as  the  other  other,  implied  an  exclusion  of  the  General  Gov- 
States  of  the  Union  should  appoint,  “to  take  ernment  from  any  interference  for  the  abolition 
into  consideration  the  trade  and  commerce  of  of  Slavery  within  the  original  States.  These 
the  United  States,”  she  took  the  first  great  step  two  provisions  are,  in  fact,  implied  limitations 
towards  the  formation  of  that  more  perfect  upon  the  power  of  the  General  Government, 
Union  and  free  written  Constitution  under  for  the  exclusive  benefit  of  the  original  States, 
which  we  live.  Sir,  that  Constitution  was  or-  So,  also,  the  ninth  section  of  the  first  article  of 
duined  and  established  by  the  people  of  the  the  Constitution  was  an  express  limitation  of 
United  States,  to  establish  justice;  to  provide  the  general  power  of  Congress  over  the  foreign 
for  the  common  defence;  to  promote  the  gen-  |  commerce  in  slaves,  for  the  exclusive  benefit 
eral  welfare;  to  insure  domestic  tranquillity;  to  j  of  the  then  existing  States.  That  section  is  in 
protect  industry ;  to  regulate  commerce,  and  to  these  words  : 

secure  the  blessings  of  liberty,  and  not  to  form  !  “The  migration  or  importation  of  such  per- 
a  mere  alliance  of  “independent  States,”  with  1  1  sons  as  any  of  the  States  now  existing  shall 
an  equality  of  right,  as  States,  to  enslave  4  think  proper  to  admit,  shall  not  be  prohibited 
men  within  and  without  their  respective  juris-  4  by  Congress,  prior  to  the  year  1808,  but  a 
di  ctious.  I  ‘  tax  or  duty  may  be  imposed  on  such  importa- 

Bat,  says  the  President,  the  Spates  are  equal,  4  tion,  not  exceeding  ten  dollars  for  each  per- 
and  have  each  and  all,  as  S  ates,  equality  of  ,  4  son.” 

rights.  The  several  States  are  equal  in  respect  This  express  limitation  in  favor  of  the  orig - 
of  oil  the  great  and  essential  rights  of  a  free  !  inal  States  was  absolutely  necessary,  if  they 
Commonwealth,  in  respect  of  all  rights  sane-  would  continue  the  foreign  slave  trade  after 
tinned  by  the  Constitution,  and  consonant  with  the  adoption  of  the  Constitution,  for  the  reason 


6 


that  the  Constitution  was  declared  “  to  be  the  [  ded  for  the  erection  of  new  States  therein,  and 
‘  supreme  law  of  the  land — the  Constitution  !  for  their  admission  into  the  Union  of  the  Con- 
1  and  laws  of  any  State  to  the  contrary  not-  |  federation  “  on  an  equal  footing  with  the  orig- 
‘  withstanding  ;”  and  by  its  terms  the  ex-  inal  States/’  [in  respect  of  all  rights  sanction * 
elusive  power  was  granted  to  Congress  to  reg-  j  ed  by  the  Articles  of  Confederation.]  but  sub¬ 
ulate  foreign  commerce,  even  to  prohibition,  ,  jeet,  nevertheless,  to  certain  terms,  conditions, 
which  included  navigation  and  intercourse  as  and  restrictions,  which  were  not  imposed  upon 
well  as  trade,  the  importation  or  commerce  in  the  original  States.  These  terms,  conditions,  and 
slaves  as  well  as  the  importation  or  commerce  restrictions,  were,  that  Slavery,  otherwise  than 
in  goods.  That  all  of  these  limitations  upon  in  punishment  of  crime,  upon  due  conviction, 
the  power  of  the  General  Government,  whether  should  be  forever  prohibited  within  said  new 
implied  or  expressed,  were  for  the  exclusive  States;  that  no  man  should  be  therein  deprived 
benefit  of  the.  States  then  existing,  cannot  be  of  his  liberty  or  property  but  by  the  j  udgment 
gainsayed,  and  therefore  the  power  of  Congress  of  his  peers  or  the  law  of  the  land;  that  the  in - 
was  not  thereby  restrained  in  legislating  for  habitants  thereof  (all  the  inhabitants)  should 
the  Government  of  the  Territories,  or  for  the  be  always  entitled  to  the  benefits  of  the  writ 
institution  and  admission  into  the  Union  of  habeas  corpus  and  of  the  trial  by  jury;  tbat 
new  States.  private  property  should  not  be  taken,  even  for 

The  attempt  was  made  in  the  Constitutional  public  use,  without  full  compensation  therefor  ; 
Convention  to  secure  to  the  new  States  which  j  and  that  the  Constitutions  and  Governments  of 
might  be  thereafter  admitted  into  the  Union  such  new  States  should  be  republican,  and  in 
the  same  privileges  thus  retained  by  the  orig-  conformity  to  the  principles  of  the  Ordinance*, 
inal  States  ;  but  it  failed.  On  the  29th  of  These  were  previsions  of  the  six  articles  of  the 
August,  17S7,  a  proposition  was  made  in  that  Ordinance,  which  were  declared  to  be  unalter- 
Convention,  to  provide  by  the  Constitution  for  able  but  by  the  common  consent,  not  of  the  new 
the  admission  of  new  States  “on  the  same  Sia tes  merely,  but  of  all  the  States.  Upon  the 
terms  with  the  original  States.” — (5  Elliot's  adoption  of  the  Constitution,  the  Ordinance 
Debates,  p.  493.)  This  proposition  was  reject-  was  superseded,  and  ceased  to  be  law,  for  the 
ed,  and  the  provision  adopted  and  inserted  in  reason  that  the  Government  to  which  it  owed 
the  Constitution  as  it  now  stands,  that  “  new  its  origin  and  validity  had  ceased  to  be.  I  have 
States  may  be  admitted  by  the  Congress  into  the  authority  of  the  President  himself  for  that, 
this  Union.”  Why  were  the  words,  “  upon  the  He  s ays  in  his  last  annual  message,  page  20  : 
same  terms  with  the  original  States,”  reject-  “ The  Ordinance  for  tbs  government  of  the 
ed  by  the  Convention,  and  excluded  from  ‘  Territory  northwest  of  the  river  Ohio  had  con- 
tke  Constitution  ?  Manifestly,  to  declare  plain-  j  1  tained  a  provision  which  prohibited  the  use 
ly  and  distinctly  the  intention  of  the  framers  ‘  of  servile  labor  therein.”  *  *  *  u  Sub- 

cf  the  Constitution,  that  new  States  should  not  1  sequent  to  fhe  adoption  of  the  Constitution, 
come  into  the  Union  of  right ,  and  upon  the  '•  ‘  this  provision  ceased  to  remain  as  lav/,  for  its 
same  terms  with  the  original  States  ;  but  only  ‘  operation ,  as  such,  ioas  absolutely  superseded 
by  the  consent  of  Congress,  upon  such  terms,  j  1  by  the  Constitution .” 

and  under  such  restrictions  as  would  subject !  But,  sir,  I  rely  not  merely  upon  the  Presi- 
them  to  the  spirit  of  the  Constitution,  not  only  1  deni’s  assertion  lor  the  authority  for  saying  that 
as  it  was 
also  as  i 

This  construction,  sir,  of  the  Constitution, 
that  Congress,  in  the  organization  and  admis¬ 
sion  of  new  States,  might  impose  conditions 
upon  them  to  which  the  original  States  were 
not  subjected,  by  requiring  them  to  conform 
their  domestic  institutions  to  the  Constitution 
in  all  respects,  has  been  affirmed  aud  sanction¬ 
ed  by  the  Legislative,  Executive,  and  Judicial 
departments  of  our  Government,  from  the  day 
of  its  organization. 


as  originally  framed  and  adopted,  but  this  Ordinance  ceased  to  he  law  upon  the  adop- 
it  might  be  thereafter  amended.  tion  of  the  Constitution.  The  Supreme  Court 

of  the  United  States  has  so  ruled  and  declared, 
in  the  case  of  S:rader  et  al.  vs.  Graham,  (10 
Howard ,  p.  82.)  In  that  case,  Chief  Justice 
Taney  says  : 

“  It  has  been  settled  by  judicial  decision  in 
1  ‘  this  court,  that  this  Ordinance  [of  1787  [  is  not 
1  in  force.  As  we  have  already  said,  it  ceased 
1  to  be  law  upon  the  adoption  of  the  Constitu- 
;  1  tion.” 

It  is  significant  that  the  court  in  this  case 
Let  it  be  borne  in  mind,  sir,  tbat  on  the  29  Ji  further  decided  that — 
day  of  August,  1787,  when  the  Constitutional  11  Most  of  the  material  provisions  and  princi- 

mi  Vi  n  n  FAnA.f  a/  ifro  Anm  ^  rJpc  fit  Pi  Y  fl.rt  1  (4  1  of  t  *1  e  Oi'dlTiaUCe  Of 


Convention  had  the  report  of  its  committee 
providing  fer  the  admission  of  new  States  under 


pies  of  the  six  articles,  [of  the  Ordinance  ef 
1  1787.]  not  inconsistent  with  the  Constitution  of 


consideration,  and  rejected  the  provision  for  ‘  the  United  Spates,  [ever  since  the  7th  day  u 
their  admission  “  on  the  same  terms  with  the  ‘  August,  1789,]  have  been  established  law  with- 
original  States,”  the  Ordinance  passed  on  the  |  4  in  that  Territory.  But  these  provisions  owed 
13th  of  July,  1787,  by  the  Congress  of  the  Con-  ‘  their  legal  validity  and  force  after  the  Constitu- 
federation,  for  the  government  of  the  North-  4  tion  was  adopted,  aud  wnfie  the  territorial  G  jy- 
west  Territory,  was  in  full  force  ;  that  it  was  *  ernment  continued,  to  the  act  ot  Congress  of 
the  law  of  all  the  national  territory,  and  provi-  4  7  th  August,  1*39,  \\Wcn.  adopted  and  continued 


1  the  Ordinance  of  1787,  and  carried  its  provis- 
4  ions  into  execution,  with  some  modifications, 
4  which  were  necessary  to  adapt  its  form  of 
4  Government  to  the  new  Constitution.  And 
4  in  the  States  since  formed  in  the  Territories, 
4  these  provisions,  so  far  as  they  have  been 
4  preserved,  owe  their  validity  and  authority  to 
‘  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States,  and 
4  the  Constitutions  and  laws  of  the  respective 
4  States,  [therein  established,]  and  not  to  the 
4  authority  of  the  Ordinance  of  the  old  Confed- 
4  eration.” 

What  were  the  44  most  material  provisions 
and  principles  of  these  six  articles”  of  the  Or¬ 
dinance  ?  They  are  those  which  I  have  already 
enumerated.  Not  one  of  those  principles  and 
provisions  enumerated  are  inconsistent  with  the 
Constitution  ;  on  the  contrary,  they  were  each 
and  all  incorporated  in  the  Constitution,  not  as 
the  Constitution  was  originally  adopted,  but  as 
it  was  thereafter  amended  by  the  action  of  the 
First  Congress  in  1789,  and  the  subsequent  ac¬ 
tion  of  the  people  of  the  several  States.  The 
Constitution,  as  originally  adopted,  provided 
for  the  government  of  the  territory  of  the  United 
States  by  Congressional  enactment,  and  for  the 
admission  of  new  States  into  the  Union ;  but  it 
did  not,  like  the  articles  of  the  Ordinance,  de¬ 
clare  that  no  man  should  be  deprived  of  liberty 
or  property  but  by  the  judgment  of  his  peers 
and  the  law  of  the  land  ;  that  the  inhabitants — 
all  the  inhabitants — should  be  entitled,  in  all 
cases  involving  liberty  or  life,  to  the  trial  by 
jury,  and  that  private  property  should  not  be 
taken,  even  for  public  use,  without  full  compen¬ 
sation  therefor.  To  the  honor  of  the  First  Con- 
ress  under  the  Constitution — the  Congress  of 
789 — be  it  said,  that  the  first  ten  articles  of 
amendment  to  the  Constitution  were  reported 
to  the  several  States  for  adoption ;  and  were, 
by  the  people  of  the  States,  ratified  and  incor¬ 
porated  in  the  Constitution. 

The  fifth  and  sixth  of  these  amendments  con¬ 
tain  substantially ,  and  almost  literally ,  the  pro¬ 
visions  of  the  articles  of  the  Ordinance,  and, 
like  them,  declared  that 4i  no  person  shall  be 
deprived  of  life,  liberty,  or  property,  without 
due  process  ot  law ;  ”  that  the  people  shall  have 
the  trial  by  j  ury  in  all  cases  involving  life  or 
liberty ;  and  that  private  property  shall  not  be 
taken  for  public  use  without  just  compensa¬ 
tion. 

The  articles  of  the  Ordinance  had  been  adopt¬ 
ed  by  the  First  Congress  under  the  Constitution ; 
and  as  the  Constitution  was  to  be  the  supreme 
law  of  the  land,  it  was  but  just  that  the  First 
Congress  should  have  those  great  principles  in¬ 
corporated  by  the  consent  of  the  whole  people 
of  the  Union  in  the  Constitution.  That  was 
done.  Why  did  the  First  Congress  adopt  these 
provisions  and  principles  of  the  Ordinance,  and 
procure  their  incorporation  into  the  Constitu¬ 
tion  ?  1  hat  can  be  most  fitly  answered  in  the 

words  of  the  Ordinance  itself: 

“  h  or  extending  the  fundamental  principles 


4  of  civil  and  religious  liberty,”  *  *  44  and  to 

4  fix  and  establish  those  principles  as  the  basis 
4  of  all  Laws,  Constitutions,  and  Governments, 
4  which,  forever  hereafter,  shall  be  formed  with- 
4  in  the  Territories .” 

The  act  of  1789  adopting  this  Ordinance,  as 
also  the  amendment  incorporating  its  great 
principles  in  the  Constitution,  were  “statute  re¬ 
strictions  upon  the  institution  of  new  States,” 
of  perpetual  obligation ;  and  if  those  restrictions 
violated  the  alleged  44  imprescriptible  right  of 
equality  of  the  several  States/’  the  First  Con¬ 
gress,  and  Washington,  and  the  people  of  the 
United  States,  were  guilty  of  that  violation. 
Perchance  they  had  not  learned  that  the  several 
States,  as  States,  had  an  imprescriptible  right 
to  enslave  men  throughout  the  National  Terri¬ 
tory,  or  that  new  States,  under  the  Constitution, 
might  assert  any  such  right. 

That  Congress  had  the  power  to  exclude  Sla¬ 
very  from  the  Territories,  and  thereby  impose 
statute  restrictions  upon  new  States,  is  clearly 
implied  in  the  deed  of  cession  made  by  North 
Carolina,  and  accepted  by  the  Congress  of  1790, 
of  the  Territory  out  of  which  Tennessee  has 
since  become  a  State.  That  deed  of  cession  con¬ 
tains  these  words : 

“  Provided,  That  no  regulations  made,  or  to 
4  be  made,  by  Congress,  shall  tend  to  emanci- 
4  pate  slaves  therein.” 

Why  this  proviso,  if  Congress  had  no  power 
by  statute  regulations  to  exclude  Slavery  from 
the  Territories,  and  even  to  emancipate  slaves 
therein  ? 

The  act  of  1798,  for  the  government  of  the 
Mississippi  Territory,  contained  one  Gf  those 
statute  restrictions,  which  we  are  told  violate 
the  imprescriptible  right  of  equality  of  the  sev¬ 
eral  States,  in  these  words : 

44  It  shall  not  be  lawful  for  any  person  or 
4  persons  to  'import  or  bring  into  the  said  Mis- 
4  sissippi  Territory,  from  any  port  or  place  with- 
4  out  the  limits  of  the  United  States,  any  slave 
4  or  slaves.”  *  *  *  “And  that  every  slave 
4  so  imported  or  brought  shall  thereupon  be 
4  entitled  to  receive  his  or  her  freedom.” — (1 
United  Slates  Statutes,  p.  550.) 

The  act  of  1804,  for  the  government  of  the 
Territory  of  Orleans,  in  addition  to  the  same 
restriction  imposed  upon  the  Mississippi  Terri¬ 
tory,  contains  another  restriction  upon  the  sev¬ 
eral  States  and  the  people,  in  these  words  : 

No  slave  or  slaves  shall,  directly  or  indi- 
4  rectly,  be  introduced  into  said  Territory,  ex- 
4  cept  by  a  citizen  of  the  United  States  remov- 
4  ing  into  said  Territory  for  actual  settlement, 

4  and  being,  at  the  same  time  of  such  removal, 

4  bona  fide  owner  of  such  slave  or  slaves.” — 
(2  United  States  Statutes,  p.  28G,  sec.  10.) 

In  1798  and  1804,  the  original  States  were 
engaged  in  the  foreign  slave  traffic.  The  lim¬ 
itation  of  the  ninth  section  of  the  first  article 
of  the  Constitution  had  not  expired,  and  Con¬ 
gress  was  thereby  restrained  from  prohibiting 
the  importation  of  slaves,  and  the  retention  of 


8 


them  as  slaves  within  the  original  States  ;  but 
Congress  did,  nevertheless,  claim  and  exercise 
the  power  by  these  two  enactments  to  exclude 
this  foreign  traffic  in  slaves  from  the  Territo¬ 
ries  of  Mississippi  and  Orleans ;  and  from  the 
latter,  the  domestic  slave  trade  also. 

That  the  power  thus  exercised  by  Congress 
over  the  Territories  is  constitutional  and  unre¬ 
strained,  either  by  popular  sovereignty  or  State 
sovereignty,  has  been  solemnly  adjudged  by 
the  Supreme  Court ;  yet  we  are  asked,  with 
mock  gravity,  “  Will  you  abide  by  the  decision 
1  of  the  Supreme  Court,  if  it  shall  hereafter  de- 
‘  cide  that  Congress  has  not  the  power  thus  to 
1  legislate?”  To  those  who  put  this  question,  I 
reply,  why  did  you  not  abide  the  decision  of 
that  tribunal,  made  m  the  purer  and  better 
days  of  the  Republic,  when  Marshall’s  splendid 
and  brilliant  intellect,  full-orbed,  illumed  its  de¬ 
cisions  ? 

The  great  question  before  the  court,  in  the 
case  to  which  l  refer,  was  the  power  of  Congress 
to  legislate  over  the  Territories,  and  the  extent 
of  that  power.  This  will  become  manifest  by 
the  statement  of  the  case,  as  set  forth  in  the 
opinion  of  the  court. 

The  plaintiffs  brought  their  action  to  recover 
certain  goods  whcli  had  been  sold  pursuant  to 
a  decree  of  a  Territorial  court  of  Florida.  The 
competency  of  this  Territorial  court  to  make 
the  decree  was  denied.  This  court  had  been 
established  pursuant  to  the  act  of  Congress  of 
1823,  which  authorized  its  erection,  and  which 
also  conferred  and  defined  its  jurisdiction.  The 
validity  of  this  Congressional  act  was  denied, 
and  upon  its  validity  the  whole  case  depended. 
The  court,  in  the  opinion  pronounced  by  Mar¬ 
shall,  C.  J.,  says : 

“  The  course  which  the  argument  has  taken 
1  will  require  that,  in  deciding  this  question, 

1  the  court  shall  take  into  view  the  relation  in 
1  which  Florida  stands  to  the  United  States.” 

After  reciting  the  treaty  of  purchase,  the 
court  proceeds  to  say  that  the  people  of  the 
Florida  Territory  “  do  not  participaie  in  politi- 
4  cal  power;  they  do  not  share  in  the  Govern- 
1  ment  till  Florida  shall  become  a  State.  In 
‘  the  mean  time,  Florida  continues  to  be  a 
i  Territory  of  the  United  States,  governed  by 
1  virtue  of  that  clause  in  the  Constitution  which 
1  empowers  Congress  1  to  make  all  needful  rules 
‘  and  regulations  respecting  the  Territory  or 
1  other  property  belongingtotheUnited  States.’  ” 
The  Court  adds,  that  “  the  right  to  govern  may 
1  be  the  inevitable  consequence  of  the  right  to 
‘  acquire  territory.  Whichever  may  be  the 
1  source  whence  the  power  is  derived,  the  posses- 
1  sion  of  it  is  unquestioned  /’ 

The  Court  finally  decides  the  very  point 
made,  as  to  the  competency  of  the  Territorial 
courts,  in  these  words : 

“  They  are  legislative  courts,  created  in  vir- 
‘  tue  of  the  general  right  of  sovereignty  which 
‘  exists  in  the  Government,  or  in  virtue  of 
1  that  clause  which  enables  Congress  to  make 


(  all  needful  rules  and  regulations  respecting 
‘  the  territory  belonging  to  the  United  States.” 
“In  legislating  for  them,  [the  Territories,] 
4  Congress  exercises  the  combined  powers  of  the 
‘  General  and  of  a  State  Government/’ 

The  competency  of  the  Territorial  court  was 
therefore  sustained,  and  the  rule  made  pur¬ 
suant  to  its  decree  held  valid.  It  is  a  little 
amusing  to  hear  partisans  say  that  this  is  mere 
dictum ,  so  far  as  it  affirms  the  power  of  Con¬ 
gress  over  the  Territories;  or  that  other  evasion, 
that  the  court  only  decides  that  u  Congress, 
‘  when  providing  Territorial  couris,  employs  the 
1  combined  power  of  a  General  and  State  Gov- 
1  ernment,”  because  of  the  unlimited  and  exclu¬ 
sive  jurisdiction  of  the  United  States  in  admi¬ 
ralty.  The  plain  words  of  Chief  Justice  Mar¬ 
shall  leave  no  room  for  this  evasion,  and  ex¬ 
clude  any  such  conclusion.  He  says  : 

“  These  courts  [the  Territorial  courts]  are 
1  not  constitutional  courts,  in  which  the  judi- 
i  cial  power  conferred  by  the  Constitution  can 
1  be  deposited.  They  are  incapable  of  receiv- 
1  ing  it.” 

He  decides  that  “  they  are  legislative  courts., 
created  in  virtue  of  the  general  right  of  sover¬ 
eignty  ”  in  Congress  to  govern  the  Territories. 
Whatever  special  pleading  may  be  set  up  to 
evade  the  force  of  this  decision,  one  thing  is 
clear,  that  in  the  judgment  of  the  Supreme 
Court  the  people  of  the  Territories,  during  the 
Territorial  organization,  “  do  not  share  in  the 
1  Government;  that  the  exclusive  right  to  govern 
1  them  is  in  Congress ;  and  that  Congress,  in 
1  legislating  for  them,  for  all  purposes,  exercises 
i  the  combined  power  of  the  General  and  of  a 
1  State  Government.” — (American  Insurance 
Co.  ei  al .  vs.  Canter,  7  Curtis ,  p.  687.) 

Is  not  the  combined  power  of  the  “  General 
and  of  a  State  Government”  competent  to  ex¬ 
clude  Slavery  from  and  emancipate  slaves 
within  a  Territory  ?  North  Carolina  and  the 
Congress  of  1790  were  of  that  opinion  ;  hence 
the  limitation  ci  the  power  of  Congress  in  the 
deed  of  cession  to  which  I  have  referred. 

Beyond  all  question,  the  sovereignty  over  the 
Territories  is  vested  in  Congress  ;  every  act  for 
their  government,  from  the  act  of  1789  to  the 
act  of  1854,  proves  this :  legislation  is  sover¬ 
eignty. 

I  have  already  shown  that  the  Constitution 
provides  for  the  admission  of  new  States,  and 
that  the  prevision  was  purposely  so  framed  as 
not  to  compel  their  admission  upon  the  same 
terms  with  the  original  States,  but  to  enable 
Congress  to  subject  them  to  other  terms  and 
conditions,  and  to  admit  or  reject  them  at 
pleasure.  Congress  has  repeatedly  exercised 
this  power,  and  in  such  a  way  as  to  put  an  ex¬ 
tinguisher  upon  the  asserted  “  imprescriptible 
right  of  equality  of  the  several  States.” 

The  act  to  enable  the  people  of  Ohio  to  form 
a  Constitution,  and  for  their  admission  into  the 
Union,  passed  April  30,  1802,  and  approved  by 
Jefferson,  provides  that  the  people  may  form  a 


Q 


Constitution  and  State  Government,  “  provided 
the  same  shall  be  republican,  and  not  repug¬ 
nant  to  the  Ordinance  of  July  13, 1787. — ( Uni¬ 
ted  States  Statutes ,  vol.  2,  p.  174,  sec.  5.) 
Whence  did  the  Congress  of  1802  derive  the 
power  to  impose  this  restriction  upon  the  peo¬ 
ple  of  Ohio,  as  a  condition  precedent  to  their 
organization  into  a  State,  and  their  admission 
into  the  Union  ?  Not  from  the  Ordinance  of 
1787 ;  for  that  was  superseded  by  the  Constitu¬ 
tion,  and  ceased  to  be  law  or  the  source  of  au¬ 
thority  upon  the  adoption  of  the  Constitution. 
The  power  wa3  and  could  be  derived  only  from 
the  Constitution,  to  impose  this  restriction. 
What  was  the  effect  of  this  restriction?  Mani¬ 
festly,  to  impose  upon  Ohio,  as  a  State,  terms, 
conditions,  and  restrictions,  to  which  the  origin¬ 
al  States  were  not  subjected. 

Those  terms,  conditions,  and  restrictions, 
were,  that,  by  her  Constitution  and  Govern¬ 
ment,  Ohio  should  forever  exclude  Slavery 
from  her  territory,  except  as  punishment  for 
crime,  on  due  conviction  ;  that  no  man  should, 
within  her  limits,  be  deprived  of  life,  liberty, 
or  property,  but  by  the  judgment  of  his  peers 
and  the  law  of  the  land ;  and  that  private  prop¬ 
erty  should  not  be  taken  for  public  use,  with¬ 
out  just  compensation  ;  and  that  all  the  inhab¬ 
itants  should  always  enjoy  the  benefits  of 
habeas  corpus  and  the  trial  by  jury.  If  Ohio 
had  tolerated  involuntary  slavery  by  her  Con¬ 
stitution,  or  had  denied  to  any  man  protection 
of  life,  liberty,  or  property,  or  trial  by  jury,  her 
Constitution  would  have  been  repugnant  to  the 
Ordinance,  contrary  to  the  enabling  act  of 
1802,  violative  of  the  fifth  and  sixth  amend¬ 
ments  of  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States, 
and  she. could  not  have  become  a  State,  or 
have  been  admitted  into  the  Union.  Her  peo¬ 
ple  so  understood  it,  and  framed  their  Consti¬ 
tution  accordingly.  What  was  the  result  of 
this  ?  Thar,  Ohio  was  admitted,  by  act  of  Con¬ 
gress,  into  the  Union,  not  “  upon  the  same 
terms  with  the  original  States,”  but  upon  the 
express  condition,  that,  a3  a  State,  she  should 
notengage  in  the  foreign  or  domestic  slave  traffic, 
and,  as  a  necessary  consequence,  that  she  should 
not,  like  the  original  States,  have  or  be  entitled 
to  a  slave  representation  on  this  floor.  Call  you 
this  equality  of  right?  Why  was  Ohio,  for  five 
years  after  her  admission  into  the  Union,  prohib¬ 
ited,  by  force  of  Congressional  enactment,  from 
engaging  in  the  foreign  slave  trade,  which,  all  ; 
that  time,  was  being  carried  on  by  the  original  j 
States?  The  ninth  section  of  the  first  article 
orf  the  Constitution  did  not  oblige  Congress  to 
deny  to  Ohio  this  privilege  ;  it  only  restrained 
Congress  from  prohibiting  this  traffic  in  the 
original  States.  Why  was  Ohio  prohibited 
from  importing  slaves  into  her  territory  from 
abroad,  or  engaging  in  the  domestic  slave  traf-  1 
fic  ;  and  why  were  all  the  States  of  the  Union,  ! 
and  the  citizens  thereof,  denied,  by  force  of  this  ! 
Congressional  “statute  restriction  upon  the  in¬ 
stitution”  of  that  new  State,  the  alleged  im-  | 


prescriptible  right  to  traffic  in  slaves  therein  ? 
Most  certainly  because  no  such  right  is  derived 
from  or  sanctioned  by  the  Constitution  ;  and 
because  new  States  can  only  be  formed  and 
admitted  upon  such  terms  as  will  require  cf 
them  a  full  and  clear  recognition  of  the  con¬ 
stitutional  provision,  that  no  person  shall  be 
enslaved  or  deprived  of  his  property  or  life, 
but  as  punishment  for  crime,  upon  due  convic¬ 
tion. 

By  the  act  of  April  19,  1816,  (approved  by 
Madison,)  to  enable  the  people  of  Indiana  to 
form  a  State  Constitution,  and  for  their  ad¬ 
mission  into  the  Union,  the  same  terms,  condi¬ 
tions ,  and  restrictions,  which  were  imposed 
upon  the  people  of  Ohio,  were  imposed  upon 
that  State. — ( United  Slates  Statutes,  vol.  3,  p. 
288,  sec.  4.)  By  the*  act  of  April  18,  1818, 
(approved  by  Monroe,)  providing  for  the  form¬ 
ation  of  a  Constitution,  and  the  admission  of 
the  State  of  Illinois,  the  same  terms,  condi¬ 
tions,  and  restrictions,  were  imposed  upon  the 
people  of  that  State. — ( United  States  Statutes, 
vol.  3,  p.  430,  sec.  4.)  The  act  organizing  the 
original  Territory  of  Wisconsin,  including  what 
is  now  the  States  of  Iowa  and  Wisconsin,  ap¬ 
proved  by  Jackson,  and  passed  April  20,  1833, 
provides  that  “  the  inhabitants  shall  be  entitled 
to  and  enjoy”  all  the  rights  secured  to  the  peo¬ 
ple  of  the  Northwest  Territory,  “  by  the  arti- 
‘  cles  of  compact  contained  in  the  Ordinance 
1  passed  July  13,  1787,  and  shall  be  subject  to 
1  all  the  conditions  and  restrictions  and  prohi- 
1  bitions  in  said  articles  of  compact,  imposed 
1  upon  the  people  of  said  Territory.” — ( United 
States  Statutes,  vol.  9,  p.  15,  sec.  12.)  The 
act  “  to  establish  the  Territorial  Government 
of  Oregon,”  passed  August  14,  1848,  secures 
the  same  rights  to,  and  imposes  the  same  con¬ 
ditions,  restrictions,  and  prohibitions,  upon  the 
inhabitants  snd  future  States  of  that  Territo¬ 
ry,  ( United  States  Statutes,  vol.  9,  p.  329,  sec, 
14,)  with  the  sanction  of  President  Polk,  and 
with  the  advice  and  consent  of  the  great  god¬ 
father  of  popular  sovereignty  himself. 

By  the  joint  resolution  for  annexing  Texas 
to  the  United  States,  the  same  conditions  and 
restrictious,  by  the  approval  of  Tyler  and  the 
vote  of  the  reputed  author  of  the  Kansas-Ne- 
braska  act,  are  imposed  upon  the  future  States 
to  be  organized  within  that  territory  north  of 
36°  30/  north  latitude. — ( United  States  Stat¬ 
utes,  vol.  5,  p.  798.)  The  mere  fact  that  Con¬ 
gress  did  not,  in  all  instances  of  the  erection 
and  admission  of  new  States,  exercise  this 
power  of  restriction  and  prohibition,  argues 
nothing  against  the  existence  of  the  power. 
The  mere  non-user  of  a  legislative  power,  in 
some  instances,  works  no  forfeiture  of  it.  There 
is  a  record,  a  very  strong  record,  of  restrictions 
imposed  by  Congress  upon  the  people  of  the 
Territories,  and  upon  the  institution  of  new 
States.  If  these  restrictions  be  violative  of 
popular  sovereignty  and  State  equality,  Wash¬ 
ington,  Adams,  Jefferson,  Madison,  Monroe, 


10 


Jackson,  Tyler,  and  Polk,  are  guilty  of  that 
violation,  and  were  black — very  black — Repub¬ 
licans.  If  these  statute  restrictions  were  con¬ 
stitutional,  what  becomes  of  this  vaunted  im¬ 
prescriptible  right  of  equality  of  the  several  j 
States  ?  If  the  General  Government  doea  not  | 
possess  this  power  over  the  institution  of  new 
States — if  its  power  is  restrained  by  popular 
sovereignty  and  State  sovereignty,  as  the  Pres¬ 
ident  avers — then  we  are  but  the  instrument  to 
enforce  whatever  domestic  system  of  govern¬ 
ment  these  high  powers  may  establish  in  the 
Territories,  even  though  it  be  a  despotism 
which  would  make  Nero  blush,  and  put  Caligula  j 
to  shame. 

Can  it  be  that  Constitution  of  the  United  j 
States  is  this  weak  and  picked  invention  ?  All  j 
your  territorial  legislation  disproves  it.  Every 
organic  act  extends  the  Constitution  and  laws 
of  the  United  States  over  the  Territories.  Your 
Kansas-Nebraska  act  does  this.  The  Con¬ 
stitution,  oeing  in  force  in  the  Territories,  is 
the  supreme  law.  Whatever  legislation,  there¬ 
fore,  of  the  Territorial  Government,  conflicts 
with  the  Constitution  or  the  National  statutes, 
is  void,  and  subject  to  repeal  by  Congress.  The  I 
Compromise  acts  of  1850,  of  which  we  hear  so  ; 
much  of  late,  and  on  which  the  gentleman  from 
Georgia  [Mr.  Stephens]  takes  his  stand,  in 
terms  recognises  the  power  of  Congress  to 
prevent  the  taking  effect  of  such  acts,  by  a 
simple  disapproval  of  them. 

The  President  recognises  the  force  of  the 
Constitution,  to  restrain  the  exercise  of  popular 
sovereignty  in  the  Territories,  and  the  power 
of  Congress  to  repeal  such  laws  a3  the  sover¬ 
eigns  there  may  pass  in  conflict  with  the  Con¬ 
stitution.  He  says  that  he  trusts  “  Congress 
will  see ”  that  no  act  shall  remain  on  the 
statute-book  cf  Kansas,  “  violative  of  the  pro- 
1  visions  of  the  Constitution,  or  subversive  of 
1  the  great  objects  for  which  that  was  ordained 
1  and  established.” 

Popular  sovereignty  and  State  equality  can-  1 
not  live  in  the  Territories  under  this  power  of 
repeal  in  Congress.  If  this  power  of  repeal 
exists,  what  is  its  limit?  Nothing  but  the  judg¬ 
ment  of  Congress  upon  the  question,  whether  j 
the  Territorial  acts  are  violative  of  the  Constitu¬ 
tion,  or  subversive  of  the  great  objects  of  its 
creation?  The  objects  for  which  the  Constitu¬ 
tion  was  ordained  are  written  upon  its  face;  and 
amongst  these  objects  were  the  establishment 
of  j  ustice  and  the  security  of  liberty.  The  Kan¬ 
sas  acts  are  subversive  of  these  objects  ;  they  j 
legalize  injustice,  and  put  liberty  in  chains  ;  j 
they  deny  the  right  of  trial  by  jury,  the  right  of 
habeas  corpus,  the  right  of  freedom  of  speech 
and  freedom  of  the  press,  and  the  right  of 
personal  security.  Are  not  such  denials  of 
right  subversive  of  the  Constitution,  and  viola¬ 
tive  of  its  spirit  ?  Let  him  say  no,  who  can, 
or  who  dare.  Now,  if  this  repealing  power  i3 
in  Congress,  as  the  President  very  clearly  ad¬ 
mits,  and  if  theee  Territorial  acts  be  needful  to 


support  Slavery,  and  Congress  may  repeal 
them,  what  becomes  of  Slavery  there?  And  if 
Congress  has  this  power  over  the  Territories, 
when  does  it  cease?  Of  necessity,  under  the 
President's  own  showing,  not  while  the  Terri¬ 
torial  organization  lasts.  When  does  that  ter¬ 
minate  ?  Only  at  the  pleasure  and  by  the  con¬ 
sent  of  Congress. 

J  have  shown  that  the  Legislative,  Executive, 
and  Judical  departments  of  the  Government 
have  recognised  in  the  most  solemn  manner 
the  principle,  that  the  Territories  are  under  the 
absolute  control  of  the  National  Government, 
that  by  Congressional  enactment  Slavery  may 
be  excluded  therefrom,  and  that  new  States 
can  only  be  formed  in  the  Territories,  subject 
to  such  conditions  as  Congress  may  prescribe- 
The  affirmance  of  this  power  under  the  Con¬ 
stitution,  by  tbe  grs-test  names  of  the  Republic, 
officially  expressed  in  all  its  departments,  has 
been  stamped  into  the  adamant  of  the  past, 
there  to  remain  forever. 

Under  these  sanctions  I  repeat  my  propo¬ 
sition,  that  Slavery  may  be  excluded  by  this 
Government  from  its  Territories — that  such 
restriction  is  constitutional,  and  may  he  right¬ 
fully  asserted  as  a  condition  precedent,  upon 
the  institution  of  new  States,  and  their  admis¬ 
sion  into  the  Union. 

It  results  from  this  legislation  of  Congress, 
that  neither  Ohio,  Indiana,  Illinois,  Michigan, 
Iowa,  nor  Wisconsin,  may  lawfully  legalize  Sla¬ 
very  therein,  without  a  violation  of  plighted  faith, 
of  the  express  terms  of  their  several  enabling 
and  organic  acts,  and  of  the  plainest  principles 
of  the  Constitution.  They  have  each  so  declared 
by  their  fundamental  law;  they  each  complied 
with  “the  statute  restriction ;”  they  each  prohib¬ 
ited  Slavery ;  and  that  the  essential  principles 
of  Liberty  might  be  “  unalterably  established,” 
they  each  declared,  by  their  Constitution,  that 
all  men  are  born  equally  free  and  independent, 
and  have  the  natural  and  inherent  rights  of 
enjoying  and  defending  life  and  liberty,  and  of 
acquiring,  possessing,  and  defending  property, 
and  that  these  rights  are  inalienable.  They 
understood  the  statute  restriction  of  Congress 
binding  and  obligatory  upon  them  as  States , 
and  hence  their  literal  compliance  with  its  re¬ 
quirement.  They  understood  the  sublime  con¬ 
ception  of  the  great  fathers  of  the  Republic, 
that  the  Slavery  prohibition  was  perpetual  and 
unalterable ;  that  the  word  forever,  as  used  in 
the  Ordinance,  and  incorporated  in  their  several 
organic  and  enabling  acts,  meant  not  merely 
until  their  State  Constitutions  should  be  form¬ 
ed,  but  so  long  as  the  States  thus  organized 
should  live.  Yes,  sir,  “  liberty  forever  to  all 
the  inhabitants,”  was  declared  by  these  Con¬ 
gressional  enactments,  and  by  the  Constitutions 
of  these  new  States,  to  be  the  essential  con¬ 
dition  of  their  existence — their  very  breath  of 
life.  And  to-dav,  over  all  that  vast  tract  of 
country,  covered  by  those  six  free  States, 
comes  the  stirring,  kindling  proclamation, 


11 


u  liberty  to  all  the  inhabitants  forever  ” — ay, 
forever — until  empires  and  nations  perish,  till 
the  heavens  be  no  more,  and  the  earth  and  sea 
give  up  their  dead  !  I  would  not  willingly  sur¬ 
render  a  power  which  has  worked  such  benefi¬ 
cent  results. 

There  is  but  one  mode  of  escape  from  the  i 
conclusion  that  this  “  statute  restriction  upon 
the  institution”  of  new  States  may  and  should 
be  imposed  by  Congress,  and  that  is  to  repudi 
ate  altogether  the  sovereignty  of  the  General 
Government  over  the  Territories — to  deny  that  ! 
the  Territories  are  the  property  of  the  United 
States,  and  assert,  cn  t.he  contrary,  in  the  words 
of  Mr.  Calhoun,  whom  the  President  undertakes 
to  follow,  but  with  “unequal  step,”  that  the 
Territories  belong,  not  to  the  United  States, 
but  to  the  several  States — that  “in  the  States, 
Beverally,  reside  the  dominion  and  sovereignty 
over  them.” — ( Calhoun’s  Works,  vol.  4,  p.  497.) 
That  was  the  only  position  by  which  that  great  ! 
man  could  make  plausible  his  objection  to  the 
Slavery  inhibition  by  Congress.  He  held  that 
the  Territories  were  the  common  property  of  the 
several  States,  held  jointly  for  their  common 
use,  and  therefore  he  claimed  that  it  was  unjust 
and  unequal  that  “  any  portion  of  the  partners 
outnumbering  another  portion  should  oust  them 
of  this  common  property  of  theirs,”  or  proscribe 
them  from  emigrating  thither  with  their  slave 
property.  He  did  not  question  the  power  of 
Congress  to  govern  the  Tertitories,  as  the  trus¬ 
tee  of  the  States,  and  for  their  benefit,  but  de¬ 
nied  that  under  the  Constitution  Slavery  could  j 
be  prohibited  therein.  If  the  States  are  ten-  j 
ants  in  common  in  the  Territories — if  they  be  : 
the  partners  in  this  property — how  can  one 
portion  of  these  partners  outnumber  another  i 
portion,  and  oust  them  ?  Surely  not  by  legis-  ! 
lation,  for  they  do  not  legislate  as  States  over 
the  Territories.  How  then  ?  By  entering  the 
Territory,  and  ousting  their  copartners  by 
force,  or  by  acts  of  usurpation.  That,  sir,  has 
been  done  already,  not  by  the  non-slaveholding 
partners, but  by  the  slaveholding  partners;  and 
that  is  the  inevitable  result  of  Mr.  Calhoun’s 
proposition,  adopted  by  the  President,  that  the 
Territories  are  under  the  dominion  and  sover¬ 
eignty  of  the  Slates,  severally.  That  is  the 
result  of  this  “constitutional  equality  of  each 
and  all  of  the  States  of  the  Union,  as  States ,” 
asserted  by  ihe  President,  for  the  government 
of  Kansas,  instead  of  the  sovereignty  of  the 
nation.  This  attempt  to  secure  equality  to  the 
States,  as  such,  within  the  Territories,  cannot 
he  effected.  No  legislation  cau  secure  it.  It 
i3  impossible,  in  the  nature  of  things.  The 
8lavehold.ng  States  assert  that  men  are  prop¬ 
erty  ;  the  non-slaveholding  States  assert  that 
men  are  not  property,  and  cannot  and  shall 
not  be  made  property  I  Georgia,  by  her  Con¬ 
stitution,  declares  that  the  Legislature  shall 
have  no  power  to  pass  laws  lor  the  emancipa 
tion  of  slaves,  without  the  previous  consent  of 
each  of  their  respective  owners.  Ohio,  by  her 


Constitution,  declares  that  there  shall  be  no 
Slavery,  except  in  punishment  of  crime,  upon 
due  conviction.  If  the  domestic  institutions  of 
the  several  States  are  to  obtain  in  the  Territo¬ 
ries,  as  the  President  asserts,  how  can  they  co¬ 
exist  there,  when  they  thus  conflict?  You 
might  as  well  expect  two  separate  and  distinct 
substances  to  occupy  the  same  place  at  the 
same  time,  or  life  and  death  to  coexist  at  the 
moment  in  the  same  body. 

Sir,  this  proposition  of  State  equality  in  the 
Territories  is  a  mere  absurdity,  except  upon 
the  hypothesis  that  the  Territories  shall  be  par¬ 
titioned.  Partition  would  be  a  compromise  ; 
and  when  the  South  assumed  this  position,  her 
great  leader  [Mr.  Calhoun]  told  us,  “  Let  us 
be  done  with  compromises  ;  let  us  go  back  and 
stand  upon  the  Constitution.” — ( Calhoun’s 
Works,  vol.  4,  p.  347.)  I  agree  to  that — the 
North  agrees  to  that ;  no  more  compromises — 
we  stand  upon  the  Constitution.  Then,  sir, 
there  is  to  be  no  partition  of  these  Territo¬ 
ries — no  apportionment  of  one  part  as  slave 
Territory,  and  another  part  as  free  Territory. 
This  being  so,  I  say  again,  the  equal  dominion 
of  the  States,  “  as  States,”  within  the  Territo¬ 
ries,  is  impossible.  The  privilege  to  hold  slaves 
in  the  Territories  for  a  short  time,  until  a  Ter¬ 
ritorial  statute  or  a  Constitution  excluding  it 
shall  have  been  adopted,  will  not  secure  to  the 
States  equality,  in  the  sense  used  by  the  Presi¬ 
dent.  It  would  not  meet  the  demands  of  the 
South  to  permit  them  to  go  into  the  Territories 
with  their  slaves  to-morrow,  to  be  driven  back 
and  ousted  by  superior  numbers  the  next  month 
or  the  next  year.  To  make  good  this  demand, 
I  say  to  gentlemen,  you  must,  you  will,  take 
another  step;  and  that  is,  to  assert  your  right 
to  hold  slaves  within  the  Territories,  after  as 
well  as  hejore  their  erection  into  States.  This 
necessarily  results,  if  within  the  Territories  the 
equality  of  each  of  the  States,  as  States,  is  to 
be  maintained. 

Why,  sir,  we  were  told  but  a  day  or  two  ago, 
by  the  gentleman  from  South  Carolina,  [Mr. 
Orr,]  that  Territorial  statutes  were  absolutely 
necessary  to  protect  slave  property  within  the 
Territories.  Enactments  to  that  end  have  al¬ 
ready  been  made  in  Kansas  by  usurpers.  Re¬ 
peal  these  enactments,  as  I  trust  you  will  re>- 
peal  them,  and  what  sanction  or  protection 
then  have  you  for  slaves  in  Kansas?  None, 
sir,  none.  You  have  a  crimes  act  for  the  pun¬ 
ishment  of  murder,  maiming,  robbery,  larceny, 
&e.,  when  committed  in  any  place  under  the 
exclusive  jurisdiction  of  the  United  States,  &c. 
This  act,  with  its  penalties,  by  its  own  terms, 
as  well  as  by  your  organic  law,  is  in  full  force 
in  Kansas;  but  it  furnishes  no  protection  to 
Slavery  or  slave  property  there.  If  any  person 
should  steal  a  slave  within  that  Territory,  held 
by  another  as  his  property,  he  could  not  be  pun¬ 
ished  under  that  statute.  If  a  slave  should 
there  resist  Lis  master’s  authority  over  his  per¬ 
son,  and  take  his  master’s  life  in  defence  of  his 


12 


own  liberty,  think  you  the  slave  could  be 
held  for  murier  under  the  National  statute? 
No,  sir  !  Why  would  it  not  be  larceny  under 
that  statute  to  steal  a  slave  in  Kangas,  or  mur¬ 
der  for  a  stave  to  resist  the  assault  of  his  master, 
and  take  his  life  in  defence  of  his  liberty?  Sim 
ply  because  larceny  can  only  be  committed  of 
property;  and  by  the  Constitution  of  oar  com¬ 
mon  country,  men  are  not  property,  and  cannot 
be  made  property,  and  have  the  right  to  defend 
their  personal  liberty,  even  to  the  infliction  of 
death!  At  common  law,  larceny  can  only  be 
committed  of  property  5  and  it  is  not  murder 
to  kill  another  in  defence  of  your  person  or 
liberty.  Our  penal  statute  uses  the  terms,  ‘•'lar¬ 
ceny”  and  “murder,”  only  in  the  sense  cf  the 
common  law. 

That  men  are  not  property,  under  the  Consti¬ 
tution,  has  been  declared  from  the  Supreme 
Bench.  Tn  the  case  of  Groves  etal.  vs.  Slaugh¬ 
ter,  ( 15  Peters ,  p.  507.)  Justice  McLean,  speak¬ 
ing  of  slaves,  says,  “The  character  cf  property 
4  is  given  them  by  the  local  law,”  and  that  “the 
4  Constitution  acts  upon  slaves  as  persons,  and 
4  r.ot  as  property.”  It  needs  no  opinion  of  that 
distinguished  man  and  eminent  jurist  to  estab¬ 
lish  this.  It  slaves  were  property  under  the 
Constitution,  it  would  follow  that  they  would 
continue  p  operty,  wherever  the  owner  might 
take  them  within  the  Union;  ar.d  hence 
he  might  hold  his  slaves  as  property  within 
Ohio,  notwithstanding  her  constitutional  pro¬ 
hibition.  It  has  been  ruled  that,  if  the 
owner  bring  h’s  slave  within  that  State, 
the  slave  is  free.  If  the  Constitution  would 
protect  slave  property  in  Ohio,  it  would  protect 
it  in  Kansas.  The  Constitution  protects  it  in 
neither;  and  hence  it  follows  that  it  can  be 
protected  only  by  local  law.  The  gentleman 
from  South  Carolina  [Mr.  Orr]  was  right, 
therefore,  in  saying  that,  without  Territorial 
laws  to  protect  it,  slave  property  could  not  be 
held  in  the  Territories.  This  concession,  sir, 
while  it  is  manifestly  true,  is  fatal  to  the  Presi¬ 
dent’s  assertion  cf  the  constitutional  and  im¬ 
prescriptible  right  of  each  and  all  of  the 
States,  as  States,  to  hold  slaves  in  the  Territo¬ 
ries. 

The  President’s  assertion  “of  the  imprescript¬ 
ible  right  of  equality  cf  the  several  States,”  is 
without  meaning,  if  it  does  not  mean  that  the 
several  S:ate3  have  extra-territorial  power, 
throughout  the  national  domain,  to  enforce  and 
maintain  property  in  slaves.  What  else  could 
he  mean  by  saying  that  the  restriction  of  the 
act  cf  1820  violated  “the  imprescriptible  right 
of  equality  of  the  several  States?”  How  did 
this  restriction  violate  any  right  cf  the  several 
States ,  unless  they  severally  had  the  right  to 
traffic  in  slaves,  and  held  slaves  as  property 
within  the  Territories?  There  was  nothing 
restricted  by  it  but  Slavery  within  the  Territory 
therein  described. 

But  there  is  another  passage  in  the  message 


before  us,  so  happily  expressed,  as  to  leave  no 
douot  of  the  President’s  meaning.  He  says : 

“The  several  States  of  the  Union  are,  by 
1  force  of  the  Constitution,  coequal  in  domestic 
4  legislative  power.  Congress  cannot  change 
4  a  law  of  domestic  relation  in  the  State  of 
4  Maine ;  no  more  can  it  in  the  State  of  Mis- 
4  souri.  Any  statute  which  proposes  to  do  this* 
4  is  a  mere  nullity — it  takes  away  no  right — it 
4  confers  none.”  *  *  *  “  To  repeal  it,  will 

4  be  only  to  remove  imperfection  from  the 
4  statutes,  without  affecting,  either  in  the  sense 
4  of  permission  or  prohibition,  the  action  of  ths 
4  States  or  their  citizens.  Still,  when  the  rom- 
4  inai  restriction  of  this  nature ,  already  a  dead 
4  letter  in  lav/,  was  in  terms  repealed  by  the  la3t 
4  Congress,  in  a  clause  cf  the  act  organizing  the 
4  Territories  of  Kansas  and  Nebraska,  that  re- 
4  peal  was  made  the  occasion  of  a  wide  spread 
4  ar  d  dangerous  agitation  ” 

Here  i3  the  assertion,  plainly  expressed,  that 
the  several  States  have  coequal  domestic  legis¬ 
lative  power,  and  that  Congress  cannot  prohibit 
Slavery  in  the  Territories,  because  such  a  re¬ 
striction,  if  allowed  and  enforced,  would  be  a 
prohibition  upon  “  the  action  of  the  States,” 
and  “  change  a  law  of  domestic  relation  within 
the  States.”  Are  ihe  several  States,  “by  force 
of  the  Constitution,”  44  coequal  in  domestio 
legislative  power?”  And  does  that  coequal 
legislative  power  extend  to  the  Territories  ? 

We  have  already  seen  fhat  the  six  Northwest¬ 
ern  States  are  not  coequal  with  the  original 
States  in  domestic  legislative  power  ;  that  they 
were  only  permitted  to  form  Constitutions,  and 
to  come  into  the  Union  upon  the  condition  that 
Slavery,  44  the  d nmest-ic  relation  ”  of  some  of  the 
other  States,  should  be  forever  excluded  from 
their  territories;  that  today  those  six  States 
are  in  the  Union  upon  that  condition,  and  can¬ 
not  establish  the  domestic  institution  of  Slavery 
■  herein.  Does  this  alleged  44  coequal  domestic 
legislative  power  of  the  several  States”  exteLd 
to  the  Territories?  The  President  manifestly 
so  concludes;  else,  bow  could  the  Territorial 
prohibition  of  Slavery,  if  enforced,  affect  “  the 
action  of  the  States,”  or  change  a  law  of  do¬ 
mestic  relation  therein?  If  the  several  States 
have  this  coequal  power  over  rhe  domestic  in¬ 
stitutions  of  the  Territories,  no  necessity  exists 
for  local  legislation  there,  to  protect  the  domes¬ 
tic  relation  of  chattel  slavery.  Trie  law  of 
Georgia,  in  that  case,  would  follow  the  slave 
property  of  its  citizen  thither,  and  make  it 
property  there,  and,  for  aught  I  can  see,  tho 
penal  laws  of  Georgia  would  also  operate  there 
lor  the  protection  of  that  property. 

But  it  is  useless  to  dwell  upon  a  proposition 
so  absurd;  it  has  no  sanction  in  the  Constitu¬ 
tion  or  in  reason.  The  extra-territorial  legisla¬ 
tive  power  of  every  State  is  limited  to  its  own 
citizens  and  subjects.  That  i3  the  decision 
of  the  Supreme  Court,  in  the  great  case  of 
W orcester  vs.  the  State  cf  Georgia. — (G  Peters , 


13 


542.)  A  permanent  change  of  domicil  deter¬ 
mines  citizenship. 

I  conclude,  therefore,  that  the  Territories 
ere  not  under  the  dominion  and  sovereignty  of 
the  States,  severally  ;  that  the  exclusive  domin¬ 
ion  and  sovereignty  over  them  is  in  the  United 
States,  and  can  be  exercised  only  by  Con¬ 
gressional  enactment ;  and  that  new  States 
v/ithin  the  Territories  can  only  be  formed  by 
and  with  the  consent  of  the  National  Govern¬ 
ment.  The  people  of  the  Territories  may  form 
a  State  Constitution,  but  unless  it  be  approved 
by  Congress,  no  State  is  organized  ;  the  Con¬ 
stitution  so  formed  is  a  nullity,  and  the  inhab¬ 
itants  remain  subject  to  Congressional  legisla¬ 
tion.  They  can  never  become  a  State  but  pur¬ 
suant  to  such  conditions  as  the  national  will 
may  impose,  and  that  will  is  limited  by  nothing 
but  the  Constitution.  The  Constitution  is  based 
upon  the  equality  of  the  human  race.  In  the 
words  of  Washington,  u  It  is  completely  free  in 
its  principles.”  A  Stp.te  formed  under  the  Con¬ 
stitution,  and  pursuant  to  its  spirit,  must  rest 
upon  this  great  principle  of  equality.  Its  pri¬ 
mal  object  must  be  to  protect  each  human  being 
within  its  jurisdiction  in  the  free  and  full  enjoy¬ 
ment  of  his  natural  rights.  Mere  political  or 
conventional  rights  are  subject  to  the  control  of 
the  majority;  but  the  lights  of  human  nature 
belong  to  each  member  of  the  State,  and  cannot 
be  forfeited  but  by  crime. 

It  necessarily  follows,  that  neither  slave 
statutes  nor  slave  constitutions  can  be  made 
Operative  within  the  Territories,  without  the 
sanction  and  approval,  express  or  implied,  of 
Congress.  The  President  himself  concedes 
this  ;  the  past  legislation  and  the  cotemporane- 
C7U3  construction  and  history  of  the  Constitution 
prove  it.  Disguise  it  as  you  may,  the  question 
which  shakes  the  Union  to  day  is,  not  whether 
Congress  may  govern  the  Terri  ories,  but  now 
Congress  may  govern  them !  The  question  is, 
whether  Congress  shall  govern  the  Territories 
in  the  spirit  of  the  Constitution,  and  impose 
such  “statute  restrictions  ”  upon  the  institution 
of  new  States  therein  as  it  will  require  the  peo¬ 
ple  thereof  to  conform  their  local  institutions  to 
the  Constitution,  and  base  them  upon  the  broad 
American,  republican  principle  of  absolute 
equality ;  or  whether,  by  the  sanction  of  Con¬ 
gressional  enactment,  by  force  of  Congression¬ 
al  law ,  the  people  of  the  Territories  shall  be 
“  perfectly  free  ”  to  organize  their  local  Govern¬ 
ments  upon  the  narrow,  proscriptive,  unequal 
principle  of  absolute  despotism  I  The  ques¬ 
tion  is,  whether,  by  your  law,  people  within  the 
Territories  shall  be  enabled  to  establish  Slavery 
therein,  irrespective  of  race,  sex,  age,  color,  or 
condition !  The  question  is,  whether,  in  the 
organization  and  aci mission  of  new  States,  the 
arm  of  industry — that  arm  in  which  slumbers 
the  nation’s  strength  and  the  nation’s  security — 
shall  be  fettered. 

You  may  call  the  State  which  enslaves  and 
eell3  its  own  children,  and  manacles  the  hand 


!  which  feeds  and  clothes  and  shelters  it,  repub¬ 
lican ;  but  truth,  and  history,  and  God’s  eternal 
justice,  will  call  it  despotism,  equally  criminal 
and  equally  odious,  whether  sanctioned  by  one 
or  many,  by  a  single  tyrant  or  by  the  million. 
I  deny  the  constitutional  right  of  any  class  cf 
men,  from  any  State  cf  the  Union,  or  from  any 
quarter  cf  the  globe,  to  establish  such  a  Gov¬ 
ern  ment  within  the  National  Territories,  under 
and  by  force  of  the  National  Constitution,  be¬ 
cause  such  a  Government  is  subversive  of  the 
great  objects  for  which  that  Constitution  was 
ordained,  and  violative  of  its  spirit.  Who  will 
say  that  it  is  within  the  spirit  of  the  Constitu¬ 
tion  to  establish  and  perpetuate  within  our  Ter¬ 
ritories  the  hated  rule  of  tyrants,  that  might 
gives  right ;  that  the  few  may  govern  the  many ; 
that  the  strong  may  justly  rob  and  oppress  the 
weak?  And  who,  as  the  representative  of  the 
people,  and  under  his  oath  to  the  Constitution, 
will  sanction  such  a  tyranny  by  a  solemn  act 
of  admission  into  the  Union? 

It  must  be  apparent  that  the  absolute  equal¬ 
ity  of  all,  and  the  equal  protection  of  each,  are 
principles  of  our  Constitution,  which  ought  to 
be  observed  and  enforced  in  the  organization 
and  admission  of  new  States.  The  Constitu¬ 
tion  provides,  as  we  have  seen,  that  no  person 
shall  be  deprived  of  life,  liberty,  or  property, 
without  due  process  of  law.  It  makes  no  dis¬ 
tinction  either  on  account  of  complexion  or 
birth — it  secures  these  rights  to  all  persons 
within  its  exclusive  jurisdiction.  This  is  equal¬ 
ity.  It  protects  not  only  life  and  liberty,  but 
also  property,  the  product  of  labor.  It  con¬ 
templates  that  no  man  shall  be  wrongfully  de¬ 
prived  of  the  fruit  of  his  toil,  any  more  thau  of 
his  life.  The  Constitution  also  provides  that 
no  title  of  nobility  shall  be  granted  by  the  Uni¬ 
ted  States,  nor  by  any  State  of  the  Union. 
Why  this  restriction?  Wa3  it  not  because  all 
are  equal  under  the  Constitution  ;  and  that  no 
distinctions  should  be  tolerated,  except  those 
which  merit  originates,  and  no  nobility  except 
that  which  springs  from  the  practice  of  virtue, 
or  the  houe3t,  well  directed  effort  of  brain,  or 
heart,  or  hand  ?  There  is  a  profound  signifi¬ 
cance  in  this  restriction  of  the  Constitution. 
It  is  an  announcement  of  the  equality  and 
brotherhood  of  the  human  race. 

I  do  but  utter  the  spirit  of  the  Constitution, 
when  I  say  that  nobility  cannot  be  conferred 
by  the  empty  titles  of  a  monarch,  however 
august  or  however  debased,  bestowed  upon  his 
servile  parasites,  who  “  bow  at  every  nod,  and 
3imper  at  every  word.”  That  is  not  nobi'ity, 
though  throned  in  power  and  “  clothed  in  pur¬ 
ple,”  which  robs  and  enslaves  the  millions, 
who  lift  up  their  haggard  faces,  and  stretch 
forth  their  shrivelled  hands,  asking  for  leave  to 
eat  of  the  crumb3  which  fall  from  their  mas¬ 
ter’s  table.  But,  sir,  there  is  nobility  in  that 
patient,  humble  toil,  which  makes  a  blade  of 
grass  to  grow  where  none  grew  before,  thereby 
giving  a  drop  of  nourishing  milk  to  one  of 


God’s  creatures.  There  is  nobility  in  that 
cunning  handicraft  which  converts  the  wool, 
the  cotton,  the  silk,  and  the  flax,  into  beautiful 
fabrics,  with  which  the  form  of  humanity  is 
clothed.  There  is  nobility  in  that  sturdy  arm 
of  intelligent  industry,  which  lets  in  the  sun 
upon  the  fertile  earth,  which  plows  its  fields, 
scatters  the  seed,  gathers  in  the  harvest,  and 
give3  bread  to  the  nations — which  hews  from 
the  forest  and  the  rock  the  material,  and  builds 
the  habitations  of  man.  There  is  nobility  in 
that  imperial  exercise  of  the  intellect  which 
enlarges  the  measure  of  knowledge,  and  lessens 
the  ills  of  life ;  which  subdues  the  elements  of 
nature,  and  makes  them  minister  to  the  wants 
and  comfort  of  our  race ;  which  gifts  the  light¬ 
ning  with  a  tongue,  and  makes  it  the  swift 
messenger  of  thought  and  intelligence ;  which 
controls  the  ocean,  engirdling  the  world  with 
its  winds  and  waves,  and  makes  it  the  peaceful 
highway  of  commerce  and  civilization. 

There  is  nobility  in  that  beneficent  policy  of 
a  State  which  asserts  the  equality  of  all,  and 
defends  the  inborn  rights  of  each,  against  the 
combined  power  of  ail;  which  establishes  jus¬ 
tice,  maintains  liberty,  rewards  labor,  and  pro¬ 
tects  property ;  which  dots  the  land  all  over 
with  public  schools,  and  thereby  gives  to  the 
people  the  power  of  knowledge;  which  builds 


and  fosters  those  institutions  which  shelter  the 
poor  and  houseless,  and  those  other  asylums  in 
which  the  blind  are  taught  to  see,  the  deaf  to 
hear,  and  the  dumb  to  speak.  This  is  the  no¬ 
bility,  the  only  nobility,  which  our  free  Con¬ 
stitution  tolerates  and  fosters,  and  which  the 
policy  inaugurated  by  its  illustrious  founders 
develops.  For  evidence  of  this,  I  point  you  to 
the  six  free  States  of  the  Northwest — the  off¬ 
spring  of  that  policy — with  their  seven  millions 
of  freemen,  with  their  free  homes,  their  free 
schools,  their  free  thought,  their  free  press, 
their  free  labor,  and  their  general  and  all-per¬ 
vading  intelligence.  The  President  would 
strike  down  this  policy,  under  the  false  pretexts 
that  it  is  violative  of  popular  sovereignty  and 
State  equality.  As  a  Representative  of  the 
American  People,  I  cannot  consent  to  that ;  the 
people  have  not  sanctioned  it ;  it  would  be  an 
act  of  political  suicide  ;  it  would  disturb  the  re¬ 
pose  of  the  dead,  and  blast  the  hopes  of  the 
living.  I  would  maintain  that  policy  inviolate 
I  would  extend  it  over  all  the  National  Terri¬ 
tories,  until  that  vast  belt  of  the  earth’s  surface 
stretching  from  the  confines  of  Iowa  to  the 
golden  gates  of  the  Pacific,  shall  be  filled  with 
this  new  order — this  mighty  brotherhood  of  hu¬ 
man  virtue  and  human  industry. 


•',WaB*KW'  >SH 


' 

. 

,  . 


■ 


' 


. 


. 


V 


